Romney On Russia Revisited – Analysis

Republican Mitt Romney has taken the neocon line, which spins the image of successive US presidents (Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama) attempting to improve Washington’s relations with Moscow – leaving the suggestion that Russian behavior makes that advocacy difficult. During his 2012 US presidential bid, Romney was ridiculed by the Democratic Party establishment for his belief that Russia posed the number one geopolitical (or existential) threat to the US. At the time, the Democratic connected MSNBC host Chris Matthews, chided Romany for ignoring the positive changes in post-Soviet Russia. Matthews approvingly referenced then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s rebuttal to Romney.

Contrary to the neocon belief shared by some others, something else has been at play which has continuously warped much of the US mass media and political establishment commentary about Russia. Concisely put, whenever a major Russia related news issue occurs, there’s a noticeable knee jerk reaction to slant towards the anti-Russian perspective. Such examples include the situation in Ukraine (in 2004 and 2014) and Georgia in 2008). More recent instances concern the suspect coverage of doping in Russian sports and the allegation of a Vladimir Putin backed Russian government effort to hack the Democratic party, for the benefit of Donald Trump.

The anti-Russian bias sharply contrasts from the effort to defend and understand the mainstream Israeli perspectives, as evidenced by the criticism accorded to the Obama administration by such Democrats as New York Congressman Charles Schumer and talking head commentator Douglas Schoen. Along with the Israeli government, Schumer, Schoen, et al, were aghast that the US abstained on the December 2016 UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution, which expressed opposition to the further building of Israeli government approved Jewish settlements, on territory internationally seen as occupied and comprising a future Palestinian state.

All of the other UNSC delegates voted for that resolution, including the Western cultured democracies of New Zealand, France, Spain and the UK. Said document references a condemnation of terrorist attacks – something the Obama administration emphasized as a basis for its UNSC non-veto. At the UNSC, the US Ambassador Samantha Power (in explaining the Obama administration’s position), expressed staunch criticism of the Palestinians, while noting that prior US administrations had all opposed the further construction of Jewish settlements beyond Israel’s pre-1967 boundaries.

When it comes to Israel: Schoen, Schumer, Power and a good number of US media and political elites see a hypocritical world that’s disproportionately opposed to the Jewish state. To some degree, it can be reasonably argued that they’ve a point. They also exaggerate things along the lines of Israeli UN Ambassador Danny Danon’s UNSC whataboutism moment when he (during the UNSC discussion on the December 2016 resolution on Jewish settlements) brought up the carnage in Syria. Contrary to what Danon suggested, the UN has spent a good deal of time discussing Syria and other issues including Srebrenica and the former Ukrainian SSR. These discussions included biases against Russia – the type shared by Schoen, Schumer, Power, et al.

As one of several examples, consider the hoopla they make in condemning Crimea’s reunification with Russia, versus their comments on Turkish action in northern Cyprus (against the desire of that island nation) and the effort to separate Kosovo from Serbia (contradicting UN Security Council resolution 1244 and the preference of Belgrade). With New York Times approval, Power staunchly advocated a most hypocritically flawed effort to have the UNSC formally recognize Srebrenica as a genocide – a matter which Russia correctly vetoed, in a way that isn’t supportive of wartime atrocities.

I’ve a good sense of knowing what Schoen, Schumer, Power and others thinking like them might say in reply. This point concerns the lack of diverse interaction in numerous mass media situations. As is, they apparently don’t see much fault in what they’ve expressed on Russia related issues. (Out of concern for not being repetitive, I won’t get too bogged down on this particular, given my prior commentary at the Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF), rerun at Eurasia Review, with some non-SCF posted material.)

All this said, there’s a basis for optimism among those favoring improved US-Russian ties. Taking an anti-Russian platform, Romney, John McCain and (more recently) Hillary Clinton failed to gain the US presidency. This encouraging sign is indicative of an American public that isn’t so threatened by Russia.

These situations are noted with a cautious optimism. Overall, the US mass media and political establishment remain unfairly skewed against Russia.

Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic. This article initially appeared at the Strategic Culture Foundation’s website on January 3.

Enjoy the article?

Did you find this article informative? Please consider contributing to Eurasia Review, as we are truly independent and do not receive financial support from any institution, corporation or organization.

Michael Averko

Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic. He has appeared as a guest commentator on the BBC and WABC talk radio, in addition to having been a panelist at the World Russia Forum, Russia Forum New York and US-Russia.org Experts' Panel. Besides Averko's Eurasia Review column - Counterpunch, Foreign Policy Journal, Global Research, History News Network, InoSMI.Ru, Johnson's Russia List, Journal of Turkish Weekly, Kyiv Post, Oriental Review, Penza News, Pravda.Ru, Pravoslavie.Ru, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Russia Insider, Sputnik News, Strategic Culture Foundation, The Huffington Post, Valdai Discussion Club and WikiLeaks, are among the numerous venues where his commentary have either appeared or been referenced. The American Institute in Ukraine and the Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies, have referenced some of his commentary, along with academic white papers prepared for NATO Watch, Ohio State University, Problems of Post-Communism and the Royal College of Defence Studies. He is source referenced in Richard Sakwa's book "Frontline Ukraine". Averko's Eurasia Review article on Pavlo Skoropadsky, provides the first full online transcript of Skoropadsky's edict calling for an "All-Russian Federation", inclusive of Russia and Ukraine. Among other issues, that article explains the relationships among the major combatants in the Russian Civil War. He can be reached via [email protected]